HALGE v GEORGE - [2003] WADC 52

HALGE -v- GEORGE [2003] WADC 52

Last Update: 17/03/2003

HALGE -v- GEORGE [2003] WADC 52
Link to Appeal:	[2004] WASCA 141
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 52
Case No:	CIV:169/2002	Heard:	30, 31 JANUARY, 6, 7 FEBRUARY 2003
Coram:	LA JACKSON DCJ	Delivered:	11/03/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Claim and counterclaim dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	TERENCE FREDERICK BERTRAM HALGE SUKKUMAR GEORGE
Catchwords:	Breach of contract for sale of land in India Claim for unpaid purchase price Counterclaim for breach by misrepresentation or deceit
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492 Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 McDonnell & East Limited v McGregor (1936) 56 CLR 50 Morgan v 45 Flers Avenue Pty Ltd (1987) 5 ACLC 222 Pearmine v R [1988] WAR 315 Ted Brown Quarries Pty Ltd v General Quarries (Gilston) Pty Ltd (1977) 16 ALR 23 TN Lucas Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1984) 1 FCR 110 Unity Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Rocco Pezzano Pty Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 603 Wardley Australia Ltd v The State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : HALGE -v- GEORGE [2003] WADC 52 CORAM : LA JACKSON DCJ HEARD : 30, 31 JANUARY, 6, 7 FEBRUARY 2003 DELIVERED : 11 MARCH 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 169 of 2002 BETWEEN : TERENCE FREDERICK BERTRAM HALGE

Plaintiff

AND

SUKKUMAR GEORGE

Defendant

Catchwords:

Breach of contract for sale of land in India - Claim for unpaid purchase price - Counterclaim for breach by misrepresentation or deceit

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Claim and counterclaim dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M D Cuerden

Defendant : Mr M Hawkins

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Scott & Kaminickas

Defendant : Friedman Lurie Singh

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
McDonnell & East Limited v McGregor (1936) 56 CLR 50
Morgan v 45 Flers Avenue Pty Ltd (1987) 5 ACLC 222
Pearmine v R [1988] WAR 315
Ted Brown Quarries Pty Ltd v General Quarries (Gilston) Pty Ltd (1977) 16 ALR 23
TN Lucas Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1984) 1 FCR 110
Unity Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Rocco Pezzano Pty Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 603
Wardley Australia Ltd v The State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514

(Page 3)

1 LA JACKSON DCJ: The plaintiff's claim is for $210,804 being the unpaid balance of the purchase price of land sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant claims to have paid and further counterclaims for about $200,000 for damages for misrepresentation or deceit.

2 The plaintiff was the owner of land in a new residential housing estate in Madras in India. He had been allocated the land because…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading HALGE v GEORGE

Details

AGLC: Halge v George [2003] WADC 52
Case: [2003] WADC 52
Decision Date: 11 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of HALGE v GEORGE, the respondent brought an action against the appellant for the recovery of an unpaid purchase price for a property in India. The appellant counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract and deceit. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant had properly rescinded the contract for the sale of the property and whether the respondent had made misrepresentations or engaged in deceit that justified the appellant's decision to rescind the contract. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties regarding the circumstances of the sale, the condition of the property, and the communications between the parties.

The court held that the appellant had not established that the respondent had breached the contract by making misrepresentations or engaging in deceit. The evidence did not support the appellant's claims of misrepresentation or deceit, and the appellant had not acted promptly or reasonably in rescinding the contract. The court also found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to transfer the property or by any other means. The court concluded that the appellant had not made out a case for rescission or damages and that the respondent was entitled to the unpaid purchase price.

Accordingly, the court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim. The respondent was entitled to the unpaid purchase price, and the appellant's counterclaim was dismissed. The court made no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Claim and counterclaim dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.